The New York Times editorial board is bringing attention back to the Supreme Court after publishing a fiery op-ed claiming that Senate Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump "stole" a Supreme Court nomination from President Barack Obama.

Last spring, President Obama nominated federal appellate court judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court seat left vacant after conservative Justice Antonin Scalia passed away last February. However, due to the highly polarized political climate and a Republican-controlled Senate, Garland's nomination expired once the 114th Congress adjourned at the end of 2016. Republicans stated that it wasn't "fair" to vote on such a big decision during an election year. Because of this, the seat is now open for Trump to fill once he takes office later this month.

Many Democrats as well as the New York Timesargue that Republican senators were encroaching upon democracy by claiming that they couldn't vote on Obama's nominee due to the fact that it was an election year. They also point out that there's been a vacancy in the high court 13 times in American history during a presidential election year, including during the presidencies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. In 11 of those cases, the Senate "took action" (i.e. considered) the Supreme Court nominee, at least holding a hearing on the matter. After Garland's nomination, the Republicans refused to do so, the Washington Post reported.

"The Republican party line — that it was an election year, so the American people should have a 'voice' in the selection of the next justice — was a patent lie," the Times' editorial board wrote. "The people spoke when they re-elected Mr. Obama in 2012, entrusting him to choose new members for the court."

Republicans, on the other hand, claim that the right was reserved to the person elected to office that year, despite the fact that the vacancy opened up squarely during Obama's term. “I’ve been clear throughout that the next president would name the next Supreme Court justice,” Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said via spokesperson. “Now, the president who won the election will make the nomination, and the Senate the American people just re-elected will consider that nomination.”

This past week, Democratic Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer made it clear that he intended to block anyone Trump nominated, the NY Post reports. McConnell said at a press conference this week that "the American people simply will not tolerate" Democrats trying to keep Trump's nominee from going through confirmation proceedings, despite the fact that they held off on such proceedings for Garland.

According to CNN, senator and former Republican presidential nominee John McCain also "promised" back in October that Republicans would be "united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up."

However, it's no secret that the Republicans are trying to make the Supreme Court more conservative-leaning, especially given that justices serve for terms that have no limit. In addition to Scalia's vacant seat, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy are both in their 80s and surrounded by talks of retiring, leaving Republicans with the potential opportunity to fill three seats (one-third of the Supreme Court) during Trump's presidency.

The move also comes as Republicans continue to introduce bills and other legislation in the hopes of undoing Obama's policies, such as the First Amendment Defense Act that discriminates against the LBGTQ community.

But while it's easy for the Republicans to make plans, there are plenty of obstacles that stand in the way. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy have not given any serious indication that they're retiring, and Republicans know that there's a possibility that the Democrats could re-take the Senate in 2018, forcing the Republican-held executive branch to negotiate more.

As for whom the potential short list nominees are for Scalia's spot, Trump's team has floated several names, including those of ultra-conservative judges Diane Sykes and William Pryor. Regardless, the Republicans' handling of the Supreme Court has many, including the New York Times editorial board, wondering if the supposedly "unbiased court" can ever be just that again.